>>> Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do. >> Granted. But any solutions to that are several orders of magnitude more expensive. > Strong disagre

>>> Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do. >> Granted. But any solutions to that are several orders of magnitude more expensive. > Strong disagree. Right now - the state of Covid work-from-home - is partial evidence. Other countries and some US cities like New York offer more evidence. I'm not sure 25% unemployment and one of the densest American cities are applicable counterexamples. > The radius of turns, and weather conditions are confounding factors for your wish. You're advocating speeds that don't leave adequate reaction times for unforseen situations, crap in the road, motorcycles, large trucks, or any number of things that regularly occur in the real world. See earlier points about variability in vehicle performance, driver skill, and reaction times. >> Given the above, you'd arrive in 70% of the time at 100 mph, no? > Extremely unlikely, you're jumping to an invalid conclusion that raising the speed limit on the highway by a percentage would yield a proportional average travel reduction. To achieve that average, you typically have to peak much higher. You're not accounting for the off-freeway portion of your trip. I was assuming both of us could apply Amdahl's law. > I'm still not seeing the money. You've made a hand-wavy purely theoretical argument with logical gaps that somehow more money would appear in my pocket if only I could drive faster. How would that happen? What makes you think that people wouldn't respond by moving 30% further away for even cheaper housing You seem to be focused on individual money, as opposed to costs / benefits to the economy, in aggregate. > Your theory fails to adequately explain why the Highway patrol is constantly begging people to slow down and be safe, posting signs about limits, being as obvious as possible about their speed monitoring, and not enforcing anywhere near as much as they could. I believe we have very different views of law enforcement, and their motivations as a branch of executive government. > Call me completely unconvinced, let's agree to disagree. Probably for the best. This doesn't feel like a good faith debate at this point.